Oh dear God, Dick Eastman was right

they were blasting out the exit hallways to prevent the escape of our own people



a few weeks ago I wrote of the picture above

One of the radial tunnels extends out underground to a subterranean structure in the lawn, called on the plan, the heliport vault, which is an element visible in some exterior shots as metal-lidded series of coffin shaped structures buried within a mounded area. In some shots we see what are likely to be their metal lids flung aside. In some of the high-resolution Ingersall shots, we even see the scattered casings of used high-explosive shells that may have been ejected from these housings--missile self-defense being the strategy and offense, the tactic.

That would explain the blast residue captured in the upper corners of these lateral hallways, which would indicate some upward blast energy, entirely inconsistent with a jetliner diving at any angle into the building.

I was wrong about the direction of the fire however. I could never reconcile this picture with the one below, because I never could have imagined the technique of spraying gold paint over soot and fire damage as a fabrication, leaving aside the motivation for it. But like certain color characteristics running through a series of medical response photographs, the use of the gold obviously deflects attention, and while pastels are merely useful for scenes of triage, gold is reserved for the special places of carnage.

In the vertical row on the right, the middle window is the fourth floor of the D-ring, and it has been deflected outward into the air shaft facing the E ring, blown by a force working two floors above, and opposite from, the direction of the path an aircraft took into the first and second floors of the Pentagon through its limestone exterior. This interior corner of the building can be seen as fiercely singed and coated in soot in a high-resolution aerial view. It appears that after the fact, a coating of gold spray paint has been applied judiciously in order to disguise the effects of detonations for the purpose of creating the image.


The staircases rising in these two short lateral hallways would have been the escape routes for those in the Navy Command Center, and other targeted offices, like those army accountants had recently occupied. Rumsfeld had announced just the day before, that $2.7 trillion in spending was unaccounted for.







The two men below can be seen in the photo above.

On March 14, 2001, a key turn over ceremony was held
to commemorate the first Navy tenants to move into Wedge 1.

Was the DLHC center-court image produced and disseminated in order to show those who thought they were "in-the-know," but who didn't know what they didn't know, that the highest levels of the Navy Command were "in-on-it?"

Seven members of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the agency that had warned about the recruitment of American Jews by the Israeli spy networks, also died. According to the Washington Post, the entire chain of command of the super secret "Chief of Naval Operations Intelligence Plot" were killed on September 11.





What could be greater than the sin of killing a million innocent people in two of the poorest countries on the globe in order to steal their oil resources and land, based on an original lie so repellent that our minds simply rebel?

When two of the West's religions sin by ganging up on the third, as rationalization and justification, the moral failing becomes infinitely graver.



In not a single image taken of the "hero rescuers" at the Pentagon on September 11, has any one of them gotten soot on their faces or hands or clothing. But the burnt wall gets painted gold in imitation of the gilded planks of fir that once made up the flooring of Solomon's Temple.

God forgive us all.

Sow the Wind: Reap the Whirlwind!

Memenography

Well, things go missing and sometimes they reappear--I try just to turn it over when it happens But once in a while something disappears and I hold onto the sense of loss. That's the story behind the apparent reappearance of this wee prodigal survivor, an image in thumbnail never seen before or since by me, which once had its publishing history attached, from some small market paper within a radius of a couple of hundred mile of Washington D.C.--like the Charlottesville Pilot-Express maybe. I loved it because it carries such a heavy culture kick for 20KB. When I saw it, I thought: wings.




An image of somebody's cat also suddenly appeared on my hard drive and now I've got to feed it and clean its litterbox.



Of course the picture was never named as wing debris, that's just what my head did as I tried to piece together a story. The pictures out of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 never once named anybody or anything, saving any caption or label space for one repeating drumbeat: "Suicidal Arab terrorists deliberately crash a hijacked American Airlines 757 commercial airliner fully loaded with jet-fuel into the side of America's symbol of military might, constantly, over and over.

The debris depicted could also be the metal lids to the buried missile defenses lying directly in front of the collapsed section of the Pentagon, which got flung aside that morning, but that's a limited interpretation. Whoever art directed this shot clearly cut and curled these two pieces to fit together as a cultural unit, saying wings. These little seeds that travel between people's heads, blossoming, getting weeded out, hybridizing, sometimes ending up as fields of tended rows of facts, are called memes in the blogosphere.

Maybe the Johnny Memeseeder who tossed out this contrived effort, started small first, testing how the meme was received in a controlled market, seeing if it relaunches, or if there is resistance.

All that would explain the extreme rarity of this image, and account for what in my mind, was a temporary suppression, but most importantly, it explains why no understanding exists for what happened to the wings of the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon on 9-11.

I'm going to create a new science of identifying the cultural intent behind contrived images used to construct reality and call it memenography.

Jack White: Regent of the Rumsfeld Retouch

Jack White's 911 Photo Studies was the the first web site I accessed on the topic of digitally remastered images taken at the Pentagon on September 11, and it remains the last word. Apparently, long out of active hosting, the pages are maintained by the folks at www.911studies.com as full-page "grabs," similar to pages of a published book, and although the individual photographs are not available for downloading, the whole page can be saved as a JPEG. But since this JPEG comes as fully loaded with extensive stenography as a Riskus scene, (plus, I have noticed changes made to the incorporated text relevant to new information I brought forth, and which my ego thinks is causal,) we can safely label 911studies.com as a governmentally sourced effort at, if not disinformation, meta-information..

These "middle ground" advocacy and skepticism efforts must have been started in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, as the conspirators realized the degree the public hadn't "bought" the narrative. Making sure that the unanswered questions remained just that, they "got out ahead" of the story, secretly working against their stated aim of truth, by "blending" realities, with canards and straw men, or like in this case, incorporating fundamental flaws.

Which explains a problem I had with Jack White from day one. He makes quite a big case about a guard rail supposedly photoshopped out of the Route 27 triage vignette shots, but he uses as his evidence for its existence only a small overhead shot, where other interpretations are possible, even preferable.

So everything of his carried a burden of doubt in after this in my book.



So to realize Jack's tiny cropping was in fact part of a larger high-resolution aerial shot, one which provides a mother load of information relevant to the guardrail issue, exposes a primary technique of disinformation, and surely damns everybody connected with this effort. It is likely that many, many other people active in the truth movement have more complicated agendas than they let on.



In Jack's shot it is unclear what purpose the truncated guardrail served. In the overhead image the design and function is clear--the railing connected to an automated traffic arm controlling access to a service drive skirting the front of the Pentagon. The guardrail crosses the lawn in a straight line then wraps around a curved sidewalk until it terminates, unseen, beneath a tree. It served to keep vehicle traffic off the lawn.

It appears that a sidewalk fronts the guardrail along its straight run, between a door in the Pentagon over to a pedestrian crosswalk painted in an access drive. However, there is a large gap in the guardrail and where it's missing, so is the sidewalk, but a vague attempt at something that looks like yellow police crime-scene tape is strung in its place.

Although the meme-shadow record mentions that rescuers cut through the steel guard rails at several points, in order to get stretchers into ambulances, that doesn't appear to be the intent here, which is far removed from the location depicted in the triage images and far larger than necessary. The absence of a corresponding sidewalk suggests the use of digital image manipulation.

So it is unbelievable to have in the official public record the following image, of Donald Rumsfeld and his aides, supposedly returning to his office after helping load wounded onto stretchers. I was convinced this picture was a bad fake before I learned its source, U.S. Army, Staff Sgt. Carmen L. Burgess, who also took the doctored triage photos. The way the tall black man is picking his teeth like he was leaving a restaurant indicates he isn't watching where he's walking and he should.

But for some unknown surreal reason, not only is the missing guardrail present, it has achieved it's Platonic ideal in freshly silvered guise, putting in on one photograph what was taken out in others and in both cases doing so in quite obvious fashion.

The background scene depicting the firefighting response was taken on 9-11 and then married to the view of the Rumsfeld triumvirate who like many other actors that day, seems emotionally disconnected. But since the later aerial shot also has signs of manipulation it is impossible to figure out what the intent was, and what went wrong.



"Photo by U.S. Army, Staff Sgt. Carmen L. Burgess Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld returns to Pentagon inner offices Tuesday morning after surveying the damage from the hijacked plane which crashed into the building moments before." 45KB At first I had thought this picture had to be a fake. The man picking his teeth like he was exiting the Palm better look out where he's going. So I was surprised to find it safely here among the orthodox, officially DoD "released" Carmen Burgess shots.www.army.mil/Soldiers/sep2001/pentattack/index.htm

My current theory is, the retoucher was given two piles of photographs to work on and told to take the guard rail out on one pile, and to put the guardrail in on the other, and the two piles got mixed up. Silly I know.

No, now I have a really good theory. Looking at this high-resolution shot can go to your head, with a "Now I see!" So the little trickster of a touch-up artist interjected that wobbly little stretch of railing, and stupid Jack bought it, without a single source of backup. Bad Jack!

Luke Frazza is de bomb!

"Emergency personnel battle a fire at the Pentagon in Washington, DC, 11 September, 2001 after an airplane crashed into it. At the same time, two passenger planes were crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. Both towers collapsed." AFP PHOTO/ Luke FRAZZA

It just goes to prove mother was right: when you go looking for the good you will find it--in people as well as in archives. She also said never trust a journalist--they are not your friend.

A star truth teller to join the ranks of...or shall I say rank of...professional photojournalists working at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001--a high ground occupied solely by Ron Sachs--is Luke Frazza, of Agence France Presse, whose work the New York Times published post 9-11, after the gray lady had caught on to her hoodwinking. I don't know how Sachs and Frazza were handled differently, but they managed to garner results which were not only newsworthy in their time, they pass a critical test of history, which impeaches the honesty of the rest.

The photo at top resembles the point of view in two famous images taken by Will Morris, who I'm sure made a great deal more motivating money off his. Frazza's shot captures the only image of mayhem which also includes a prospect of a neighboring commercial building, which for some reason downgrades the whole context of the disaster into the mundane. Please note the blind facade facing the Pentagon--those are not windows, just a pattern of faux fenistration. Also, singularly depicted, is a truer showing of the depth between the Pentagon building and the construction trailer and cable spools, all the other work being deliberately foreshortened. I don't know what the relevance of these points are, I just note them as thoughts for research.

The firemen are depicted as always--standing around doing nothing, but Frazza gets a sharper focus on their lack of focus.

He even catches one of them going inside for a pee.

And in a photo which should disgust us, as it opens our eyes and sets off alarm bells, Frazza captures the same group of men shown in Hillary Smith Garrison's dramatic image of military rescuers standing in the maw of a fiery hell. One man, who wears a backpack, is seen in both, along with several other images from that period. In Frazza's shot, apparently a "before moment," the backpack guy is seen talking with someone who has broken out in full laugher, as others look distractedly on, or away, or at one another, or at the camera, focused anywhere but at the galvanizing event which shocked the world. They stand poised, arms crossed, or hands on their hips, waiting for direction.

Chain chain chain....chain of fools...

FBI agents form a human chain looking for crash debris behind the Pentagon.

Frazza takes a group of three images of "FBI" agents forming "human chains" looking for evidence of a plane crash on the ground. Viewed independently, and certainly when seen together as a group, these images show the agency of the FBI engaged in an artificial staged response, anonymously mugging for the ground's benefit, without finding anything evidential it appears, at all. They send a subconscious message of hopelessness. In one shot Frazza even catches the buses that brought hundreds of these backbenchers onto the scene within a half hour after the battle had ended.





Ron Sachs tops with a photograph of a bus with the word "NOT" in its display sign.




To Luke Frazza! We can tell one another apart now and you made the cut. Sorry I took so long to say Welcome!

Telling the Truth from the Lie

This embedded 7-minute-and-54-second You Tube clip captures some decisive moments in Craig Ranke's and Aldo Marquis' new 1-hour, 20-minute, and 38-second film, the PentaCon Smoking Gun, the short version of a threatened multi-hour Researcher's Edition, yet to be released.

In a film constructed with little technical savvy and almost no artistry, whatever special effects that are sprung for stand out like sore thumbs. This clip seems cut to highlight its opening exchange, as an off-camera Ranke grills a gum-chewing police officer, Sgt. William Lagasse, asking him the pivotal question,

"Now how sure are you that the plane was to the north, was coming from the north side of the Navy Annex--you were saying that it was pretty much between the Navy Annex and Arlington cemetery, how certain are you of that?

Sgt. Lagasse answers clearly: "100 percent, I'd bet my life on it." Apparently, this doesn't drive a stake all the way through the heart of the matter, as the film makers immediately cut to a close up of Lagasse repeating the same line, but this time channeling Linda Blair of The Exorcist. He might as well have said, "your mother sucks cocks in hell," as gas hoses fly off pumps, the effect is so startling given the grave documentary context.

As if that weren't enough to pound get it? into our skulls, Ranke gives the OK, then pauses for a full 8 seconds of silence to collect himself, before moving on.

The devil on the Pentagon stage, September 11, 2001, was once satisfied with inside jokes and bright shiny fire trucks and ambulances--now he wants speaking roles! What's next? His name on the Marquis?

But competition comes from up above, arriving 30 seconds into the clip, as a low-altitude jet-liner flies overhead, making such a racket that the men's small talk is completely drowned out. They, however, remain oblivious. Since jet traffic is constant throughout the longer version of the film, often with the metronome of criss-crossing helicopters as an accompaniment, it's obvious one gets used to the steady noise in Arlington, and pays it little mind.

This stands in marked juxtaposition to the meme of September 11: eyewitnesses expressing shock at hearing a low altitude jet-liner flying in "unused" or "closed" airspace. Whatever flew into, over, or around the Pentagon that morning, came in at extremely high rate of speed, descending into a bowl whose perimeters were entirely controlled by the Department of Defense, passing a population customarily inured to the constant low-level air-traffic noise of a nearby airport, crashing in fact, at the exact spot where other air traffic regularly lands, which could explain why some people witnessed a helicopter as involved.

And what precision, for a suicidal Muslim ideologue who probably didn't intend to leave the world a single message: that he was a terrific pilot.

The vast majority of eyewitness statements will be judged as false, based on the physical science of vortex and lamp pole, as inconsistent with one or more aspects of the results of a computer modeling of events. But our government refuses to undertake a science in the service of truth. Determining motive will be a little harder but not much.

I spoke with Craig Ranke about the route his research took, how he got in touch with the police officers for instance. He came right out and said he called the Pentagon Police Department, with Officer Brooks eyewitness report was contained in the Smithsonian Museum archive. No prouder American institution took a dive for 9-11 more than castle on the Mall. I'm sure it pained curators to mount exhibitions of historical artifacts like the following









The Smithsonian would be the last place I'd look for truth under the circumstances, especially from a couple of cops, who are forced to lie as a primary function of their jobs, as muscle for our long established system of creating reality.

Where I live, a rare breach in the blue wall of silence occurred several years back and it had to do with lies. A high-level officer, who spent most of his six-figure professional life in service to his benevolent union business, was also running for local elected political office. In the middle of the campaign however, he was forced to step down, rumor and editorial having it, the expense of keeping some scandal quiet. Several months later, he did the unthinkable, surely as revenge, when he came out in letters-to-the-editor accusing a fellow officer of lying on the stand in a manslaughter case. In that case, the testifying officer had been off-duty without leave the night in question, but that didn't stop him from giving a soup-to-nuts report in a hit-and-run case, when he had never actual been on the scene. Winding them up and telling them what to say, being the operative details in jury trials. Neither received any consequence for the actions other than eventual retirement. And the rumored scandal that started the whole affair? The first officer was implicated in a matter of a theft from the police Chief's locked safe, where evidence of other scandals was held.

Officer Lagasse, who is given too much time to talk in this film relative to his contribution, argues away inconvenient facts by saying "What official story? The only official story would have been the Arlington County Police report done after the event. There's no official story other than that, that's the After-Action Report, that was written by the Arlington County, the Fire Department, along with the police agencies and the Pentagon police, at the time, the Defense Protective Services," and it's just too damn bad if the report is silent on the issue at question.
Facts not existing if they don't make it into the report.

My "Cracked Sixth Sense"

Defending oneself from charges of schizophrenia is a slippery slope, especially when your enemies know all the computer secrets and are organized to constantly hound and undermine you. But two recent online experiences give me the feeling of having a solid foundation underfoot--whether in ordinary, non-ordinary, computer-generated, or Bush-created reality, I leave up to others to analyze.

When working in Word while writing a recent blog, Reconciling Sgt Nat Orme's Commentary, I got to a place mid-way, where I telegraphed my upcoming intention by saying

".........I want to change the mood. The remaining information is on a different plane, consisting as it does of the names of two senior FBI agents in charge at the Pentagon for this action........."

when someone, or thing, took control of my cursor and began furious typing on my screen in random patterns:

666666666666666666666666666666666666666
666666666 666666666666666
666666666666666666666666 6666666666

in such a fashion that I could feel their extreme visceral upset. I don't think I was meant to catch on to a level of oversight that extended into the interactive realm, but I inadvertently triggered it.

Or maybe I just dreamed it.....

In a second experience, I received an email from a Pentagon 9-11 researcher known as "MERC," someone I had once had the briefest online exchange with, which might constitute my entire interaction with anyone in the 9-11 skeptics community. He was initiating contact to share a new film he and a partner had made, which can be found at their ThePentaCon web site. We spoke on the telephone in a three-and-a-half hour, late-night conversation before I had watched the film. Since he asked for feedback, after I had seen it, I let him have it.

It was clear to me that no one in the film was telling the truth. I had no idea why he was promoting his theory, other than it was as disinformation. I had never thought of him as an agent of counter-information before, but now I was absolutely certain of it. The realization that the research terrain could be so riddled with paid synthetic creatures made me glad that until then I had somehow fallen by the wayside into a strict isolation and avoided their influence.

He emailed me back in high dudgeon at my views. I sent him a rejoinder email elaborating my criticism. My printer was malfunctioning at the time, but I felt our series of emails was important enough to store in several different locations on my computer. I had another long telephone conversation with his partner, Craig Ranke, the following night. When I tried to next access the series of messages, all but my original email had been....well, perhaps, eradicated, is the best word...from several locations on my hard drive. While I had often thought of my files as vulnerable, this was a conspicuously diligent pilfering.

The gist of my view was these guys have no idea how privileged their assumptions and level of access seems to someone like me. Likewise in their attitudes, which must be a common blind spot for anyone coming out of a tradition of elite secrecy. I can only remember a single phrase from his expurgated email, which he had thrown back as criticism of me:

"You sit and stare at photographs with your cracked sixth-sense, while we are doing footwork!

I think that is a marvelous phrase and I claim it as self-identification! But the question remains... is it schizophrenic?

(Below, I'll reprint my first email critique, only because I am in love with the sound of my own voice. The falsity in the film is transparent to any of us forerunners, if not to the insiders.)




May 27, 2007

Hi Aldo—

I had a chance to look over your 1-hour-and-20-minute film, reviewing it at some depth, even making a faithful transcript of a long section of it. You asked for feedback and I’ll just launch into it.

I found the film to be extremely problematic, on a very deep level, and calling into question every component of your honesty and integrity as you expressed yourself to me in our long telephone conversation. I’ve come to no conclusions as to who or “where” you are; just had the number of questions I’d like to ask you doubled, which, frankly, makes you more fascinating. I intend this as constructive, and I’ll try my damnedest—so take a deep breathe and let’s meet there.

First off, this work must be intended as subversive because it is so poorly arrived at, so riddled with obvious counter-indications, and so bombastically oversold that you indict your arguments on the overt level as well as hold yourselves open to question and ridicule. Maybe I’m lacking some perspective, as I was startled to find my mound theory as THE weird integral facet, for reasons I can’t begin to fathom, but I don’t think you want to go there.

And it may be you who lack perspective, as you must be unaware of how singularly privileged this all looks, with a level of access simply unheard of in any real gumshoe world. Needing verification, you, “Moved up the street to the Citgo gas station,” and got some. What is it about you that would generate the trust and openness to get so many highly credible but as yet unknown eyewitnesses to be forthcoming? It isn’t your interview technique. My criticisms will be all internal within the arguments you present as revealed in your film’s performances.

Lets get to it. I’ll begin with transcript of what I am assuming is you, “Merc,” or Aldo, based only on your very distinctive way of saying “Rightttttttttt,” and I noticed you didn’t reveal much beyond a quarter profile of your face, and we spoke of just such a detail in our telephone call as suspicious behavior.) This is your voice over, as the transition from the Edward interview to the segment on Robert.

Merc: in a voice over: While we fully understood the importance of Edward’s testimony when we first heard it we knew it was important to see if his claim could be corroborated or refuted, so we moved up the street to the Citgo gas station, where we spoke with the manger, who told us about Robert Tercios, an employee who saw the plane. Please note, the fact that Robert Turcios was at work on 9-11 and was an eyewitness to the plane has been confirmed by his own manger, and is officially on record with the station’s payroll. Because of this there is confirmed documented proof that he was at the station and saw the plane on that day. Here is how Robert describes what he experienced.

The entire interview sounds to the ear and reads like an out-of-control young prosecutor questioning a defendant on the stand, but with absolutely no concern over grounds for objections. You take pains to note a manager’s hearsay report that Robert “saw a plane,” adding an official payroll report that “he was paid for the day,” to become “confirmed documented proof.” How does a payroll confirm he saw a plane? This is utterly laughable as your jumping-off place. Then you fail by not allowing, “how Robert describes what he experienced,” rather, here is how you cast his experience through leading and cajoling—skills found in traditions of elite secrecy, I must assume, because they are not the rule of law.

Cut to Robert standing on the south side of the Citgo.

Robert: OK. So, I’m saying, I had just come out to do the pump maintenance that morning, you know, taking out the old water, replacing the paper towels, and I had my cart over here and when I…I hard a loud engine sound—we normally get fly-bys, from the airplanes—but it was louder than that. So you know, I started looking at where it was coming from. So I was looking around, and I saw the airplane come down here, over the tree.

Merc: OK. Lets see where you saying it was coming down. We’re on the south side of the Citgo station, Robert says he saw it came down come down over here…the camera pans to the north…on the north side. Is that right, Robert?

From the git-go, Robert is admitting to the use of an established script in his syntax, not, “so, as I was saying…” or, “as we previously discussed.” This likely stems from something you mention towards the end of the interview, when you say, “OK. I gave you this drawing yesterday” wherein he drew a flight path for the plane, because he apparently wouldn’t draw it on camera like the two cops do. These sorts of meetings are called “advanced briefings,” Aldo, not investigative journalism.

By the way, the way you use his name, “ROBERT,” makes it sound like your trying to hypnotize him, or intimidate him, which is poor interview etiquette at minimum. He should have answered you back with a tug on his forelock, as he scrunched his cap between his hands, shouting out, “Yes Govnur!”

Robert: Yes that’s correct, it was, to my, I saw it come right over that, the top of the tree there, next to the corner of the canopy

Merc: repeating: Next to the corner of the canopy…which carries no meaning because the camera is not catching sight of any corner, which lead to an obvious non sequitur … So it came between those two trees?

Robert: Yes, that’s what I recollect

Merc: OK.

Here, already, is an example of your intent, because you are not present, you are not listening, and you are not responding appropriately, which I must assume is because you haven’t gotten to the more important part yet. So here you’re blinded dissociated.

Robert: still on message, Um…It seemed to be very, very low to the ground, I thought it was going to let, hit, the floor…the street…here…the ramp….but, I…

Merc: too brightly: So, let’s go over there!

Aldo, in our call, we both spoke of our experiences contemplating the devil in this work. I’ve become experienced enough even to codify several attributes I find in his messages: a recognizable signal by grammar or syntax, a repeated or omitted word, for instance; a dislocated voice—like a stage whisper, or ventriloquism; a message in form of the exact opposite of what is really the truth; but with Robert, who truly is transparent and guileless, as he gets upset in direct proportion to the pressure placed on him to say a certain thing in a certain way, I saw a common attribute hidden by its obviousness: the quick ins and outs, sometimes only a few words long, without any continuity, like computer viruses battling. As in here, where Robert loses his second-language skills, in both the subject and the verb simultaneously: Let! Hit! Floor! Street! Ramp! I tried to be faithful to meaning in my use of punctuation, and it reads like he’s losing his grip, and surprise, the topic is the mounds! Why?

Robert leads the way towards the mound, with the camera following. After only a few steps, and mid-stride, Robert is heard to say in a slightly surreal voiceRobert: Stop here…but he doesn’t, continuing on, advancing to the curb, when Merc asks:

Merc: Where were you exactly?

Which stops him cold. He turns back towards Merc angry, misunderstanding his meaning, exasperatedly laughing.

Which Merc also misinterprets. He responds aggressively, saying Merc: You were right there! But the mound was a lot smaller huh?Robert: Yes it was a lot smaller.

There is an awful lot of energetics in this scene. It’s riff with assumptions that come from a back-story. We have been over this ground before, apparently. Anybody will have a hard time establishing why the mounds were built in the first place, let alone why they were “grown.” On September 11 they were beautifully formed and solid, raked with groves in anticipation of seeding (an absolutely brilliant detail by the way, to leave them in an unseeded state for 9-11! Choice!) It is simply weird to introduced this element, this way, here at this time.

Merc: still leading, a la Pearl Mesta: You have some pictures of that, why don’t we get Fred some pictures. Can you show us those pictures Robert, how high was the mound, Robert? Merc hands off a portfolio, which Robert takes, opens desultorily, vaguely proffering the top image… Robert: This is what it looked like then, like, back then,

Merc: O.K. let me zoom in on that.

Robert: It was not completed then as you see it now.

Merc: Rightttttttttt.

It was a little bit shorter

Merc: with only slightly less T rollage: Righttt.

Robert: So I could see a little bit, more then now….ah, but..

Merc: interrupts in his too-positive persona, offering absurdly: In fact, let’s go up on the mound and see if we can get a better view of what you actually saw.

Robert leads the way, but stops halfway up the mound. The camera ascends to that point, but just keeps on going, an additional five or so steps, to the crest. As the camera stabilizes, leveling its view of the Pentagon, we can then see Robert’s shadow sheepishly taking the extra necessary steps to meet up with him. Leading the witness?

Wow. This is intense. Did I start this mess? Shit. Don’t try this on Court TV.

And I still can’t tell, after repeated viewings: does Merc mistakenly call Robert Fred once?

Merc: OK! So there we go. That’s the Pentagon! Pretty close view of where the impact point was. Turning the camera to face Robert, who visibly recoils in involuntary defensiveness at the combination of this gesture and his vocal tone… Now Robert, when you ran up to the mound, you saw the plane fly through…um…between these two trees, What happened after that.

Robert: Well, as I say, um, what I saw was a gray plane ah …shrugs…I couldn’t really tell exactly what it was…quickly correcting himself…I mean, I couldn’t tell the markings on the side of it, just...

Merc: Interrupting: Did you see any markings at all?

Robert: No, I don’t remember seeing any markings.

Merc: OK. It was gray. Was it a bright gray or a dull gray. Oy vay!

Robert: Kind of bright.

Merc: Kind of bright.

Robert: shrugs: It was more a silver gray than….

Merc: OK.

Robert: But it was so, kind of quick, maybe two seconds when I saw, laughs, gesturing back to where he had been standing, when I saw…swoop down here…then I tried to follow it…I…saw it lift up a little bit to get over to the side of the bridge…here.

Merc: To the side of the bridge?

Robert: Yes, where you see the Do-Not-Enter sign

Merc: attempting to focus the camera: The Do-Not-Enter sign…

Robert: it seemed to be that way…pause… the Do-Not-Enter sign…oh I see… OK, he’s talking about the Do-Not-Enter sign…pans…right there…

Robert: It’s on the billboard…

Merc: Right there…Leading the witness: So it flew up to go over that.

Robert: Yes, it…ah…

Merc: OK. And?

Robert: And, then, my view was not…I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon, all I see is, all I saw was, it headed straight to it, and a, shrugs, then the big explosion, just the fireball, and lots of smoke.

Merc: OK. So you see….so you didn’t actually see it hit the Pentagon? Duh.

Notice that the repeating of “run up the hill” by Merc should have read, “So, I ran out here...to this mound…to see if I could see what was going to happen…ah...but.”

Quite clearly, you have a vested interested in getting Robert to admit to seeing something attempt a “pull-up” maneuver, which might then be broadened into your flyover theory.

Robert’s honest testimony is, “I tried to follow it.”

I think the only thing that would hug the ground over hill and dale like that would be a cruise missile, but than again, I KNOW you have a vested interest in NOT saying that.

Robert: No, the views was…it was obstructed still…I could only see the… he gestures…the fireball.

Merc: Did you see it hitting any of the light poles?

Robert: No, I…laughing satirically—I must have missed that. I just saw it pick up, just to make the…

Merc: You saw it pick up to miss that? Rather than hitting the lamp poles? Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?

Robert: Disingenuously: Fly over? The Pentagon? No, only thing I saw was when it was a direct, a direct line to go into the Pentagon….

Merc: interrupting…OK. So you didn’t see it hit?

Robert: finishing…. collided…. No I did not.

Merc: Because there were other plans as well, some people say a gray plane flew over the Pentagon that was following it. But you did not see that?

Robert: No, I did not see any other planes…no.

Merc: OK. Did you see any windows on the plane?

Robert: No, I don’t.

Merc: Did you notice how many engines it had?

Robert: I could see the one from my side, the big turbine engine, you know, on the wing. Laugh

Merc: OK. Just one.

Merc is clearly not paying attention to Robert at this point. Yes Merc, Robert technically said “one” big turbine engine, but he also said, “you know, on the wing.” He is meaning for you to extrapolate the result, not mindlessly parrot, “OK. Just one,” as if the plane’s name were Eileen.

Cut. Robert is shown standing on the north side of the Citgo station, where the mound has conspicuously petered out, revealing the full splendid view of the Pentagon.Merc: OK. Here we are on the north side of the Citgo station, the Navy Annex station…laughs... whatever it’s called. What’s it called?

Robert: Navy Exchange.

Merc: Navy Exchange:

Merc is simply being rude here, which further establishes his priorities.

Not continuing on with the full transcript, the interview concludes with a sequence:

Robert: I lost sight of it behind the mound…getting back on message… that’s when I ran out…

Merc: Pauses to collect himself, then in a summary tone: When you ran out to the mound, that’s when you saw it pick up a bit?

Robert: Utterly surrendered: Yes.

Merc: OK. But without a doubt it was on this side of the station the north side

This blows the whole game! You are saying yourself that your two major points carry different levels of doubt and verification! Are we meant to find out the truth by virtue of such slipshod work and does this explain your ennui over the agenda of the Illuminati? Are we meant to destroy ourselves in factional fighting?

The following conclusion is cheap bullshit and you know it.

Robert’s account is earth shattering. He collaborates Edward’s account and definitively places the plane on the north side of the gas station, proving the official story a fabrication. What’s also quite notable about Robert’s account is he actually saw the plane pull up to miss the street sign and light poles.

So, where does that leave us? When they say “it was an inside job,” what does that mean?

I sense several factions dancing in a balance of corruption, as well as even more covert-—if there can be such a thing—-organized pockets of good will, working to subvert the subversion. Where do you fit in Aldo? Because your bullshit about taking the bus doesn’t fly with me anymore.

Lastly, my responding to you privately in this fashion is completely uncharacteristic of me and my tactics. I know this stuff in my gut and I should be altering the tenses here and there and publicly posting straightaway on my blog and your forums, which is likely to happen anyway, but giving you a chance to come clean first, leaves me reeling. Please don’t lie again.

Diagnostic Dialectics

Craig Ranke CIT said...

I waited anxiously for Steven War Ran's response. I thought it would be an amazing look into the mind of an eccentric, narcissistic, egocentric, paranoid old queen who happens to coincidentally be a Gemini and a Cock just like myself.

In that expectation I was somewhat fulfilled but unfortunately my high hopes for a detailed and wonderfully written psycho-over-analysis of the evidence we have worked so hard to obtain were dashed.

No...instead he took the lazy way out and chose to merely post his paranoid knee-jerk response to our information while erroneously referring to MERC as the interviewer who is actually Aldo Marquis, my research partner and the narrator of "The PentaCon".

Aldo did respond and perhaps I will post that here soon. Funny how SW chose to leave Aldo's response out of his woefully uncreative blog.

I however am the other half of Citizen Investigation Team and was actually the one that conducted the interviews in The PentaCon. SW knows this as Aldo pointed it out somewhere around 5 times in his response.

It boils down to this.....we are concerned, intuitive, fearless, intelligent, ambitious patriots turned investigative reporters who KNEW the Pentagon attack was an incredible deception. We had come across this little blog in the past and thought this SW guy was able to understand some important things that others couldn't. We are now in this position of having this explosive evidence so we have been contacting everyone and anyone that has an interest in the information to get feedback.

We've met our share of researchers that could be labeled "ego driven" but this SW character is a virtual cartoon!

He is so in love with his multiple missile theory that he is actually asserting that we staged all of the testimony in our documentary even though the evidence we present PROVES 9/11 was an inside job!

It's beyond laughable as I am quite sure that all of you 12 readers of his blog will quite easily understand for yourself when you watch our film.

We are merely honest regular citizens with a deep feeling of anguish and fear for the future who have set out to expose the blatant deception that is causing the deaths of so many innocent people on a daily basis without end in sight.

How DARE Steven Welch let his disgusting ego get in the way of our hard work. I talked to this emotional dwarf for about 2 hours on the phone in an effort to be honest and sincere about the truth. I will gladly respond to ANYONE'S questions about the information, our intent, and who we are. Feel free to email us: cit@thepentacon.com

SW's attacks are hollow and if you look deep into his words you will quite easily see that they are ego driven.

It's unfortunate. The forces of truth could use more clairvoyants on our side.

Of course when their 6th sense is broken perhaps it's best they simply stay wallowing in their selfish little cesspool of evil self-importance.

Peace,
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team

Friday, June 22, 2007 11:33:00 PM

stevenwarran said...

Craig! Can't you read? I didn't post Aldo's response because it seems to have gone missing from my machine!

Please, please, please do post it! I have only a vague recollection of its contents, or lack thereof.

(P.S. You've kept your sense of humor, I see, which I applaud, by quoting Aldo repetition of my mistake in identifying him, the narrator, from you, the on-screen host, five--or more--times. Useful replacement for actual argument over tangibles.)

You covert-world people play too much! I shan't ask you to surrender, your position is being overrun! In my humble opinion.

Saturday, June 23, 2007 4:15:00 AM

Craig Ranke CIT said...

Oh right. We used our sooper secret elite lizard people powers and reached through the internet to delete the different files that were saved in triplicate throughout different areas of your hard drive. I forgot about that while I was typing my response. Of course if I post the response again won't that defeat the initial purpose of our efforts and demonstrate just how deep your paranoid lunacy runs?

Well.....actually, while we were in your hard drive we went ahead and reapplied all the secret satanic military code to all of your images but this time they are invisible so you will NEVER be able to remove them! So beware loyal SW readers! I wouldn't download any of his images anymore. You may be unwittingly accepting molecular sized microchips that will eventually make their way to your brain so we can monitor your every thought! Saturday, June 23, 2007 12:34:00 PM

stevenwarran said...

I'll let the gentle reader judge Craig's digression into the "secret satanic code" that "can monitor your every thought." Since such elaborate stegnography can be found underlying many professionally sourced images, such as from the AP and the UPI, maybe it represents monitoring for profit motive! And while I did note the reappearance of code on some previously cleaned images that I host, I simply deloused them again. It's all a game anyway, isn't it?

That would explain why two "merely honest regular citizens with a deep feeling of anguish and fear for the future," such as Craig and Aldo, employ such extensive computer encoding behind their posted pictures--code which doesn't appear when I use my little Olympus.

I recollected that some of our missing email constituted a pissing contest over who was vainer and more megalomaniacal in analyzing who, or what, was shaping events. The Citizen Investigation Team claims that after getting permission from the Navy to film at the former Citgo, by "flying under their radar," a consequence to the revelations emerging from their eyewitnesses, just by advanced word of the impending film, was that the Pentagon released the Citgo videos, footage which was pretty useless to the rest of us, although it had applications for them.

(I only claim to have influenced a video tribute from two twenty-something-year-old amateur sleuths from Los Angeles--not having pulled the strings of the Pentagon.)

Another startling claim from the pair was that they were in possession of either Cpl. Ingersall's camera memory chip, with its untold images, (Aldo's version,) or a CD disk with 200 Ingersall pictures, gotten from someone at the VDOT, (in Craig's telling,) which made my mouth start to water. These are just a few of the numerous pieces of insider access and taken-for-granted privilege that constitutes their affect in my book. As I may very well be motivated by ego in some degree--I'll have to take a closer and deeper look there--but I'd rather it be that then looking like a paid operative.

So come on guys! Show the world the email that you claim to have and that I claim to have lost! And Aldo Marquise sounds truncated, Isn't it short for Aldo, Marquise di Napoli or something? Saturday, June 23, 2007 8:26:00 PM

Craig Ranke CIT said...

I emailed it to you so you can make a full blog out of it on your front page where it belongs in all it's glory.

Even if as you claim this "elaborate stenography" exists on commercial digital images (does that even make sense?) I find it hard to believe that a computer challenged blogger in his 50's like you who got frustrated by simple instructions to copy and paste a link into his browser would know a damn thing about it.

I can tell you exactly what happened to your magically disappeared copies of Merc's email.

You buried them too deep in your registry and can't remember where they are and you are too computer illiterate to run a search on your hard drive for the file or you forgot the secret nondescript name you assigned to them!

So ummmm yeah.

I understand what we have accomplished is unfathomable to you and I agree that it is a big deal.

But we pulled it off and we have proven 9/11 was an inside job.

I'm sorry if it doesn't fit with all your theories but you were right about some stuff.

You were certainly right about Lloyd and you did great work with McGraw.

But you are off base with us and that makes me leery about a lot of the other junk you write.

You can't expect to be right all the time when everything is based solely on your cracked sixth sense.

Saturday, June 23, 2007 9:39:00 PM

stevenwarran said...

Dearest Craig: Thanks for sending along Aldo's email. I find the give and take such a "work in progress" displays as being the groundwork of Truth, that capital-T thing we both claim to be searching for. I'll have to incorporate it into the sequence, as it should follow these comments--maybe I'll duplicate it all in a four-color scheme in a brand new blog. What color do you want to be?

I may be a computer challenged blogger--who for all of five days has been "in his 50's,"--but wasn't I the clever one to figure out a method to decode images? But I'm glad I kept my mouth shut and didn't share my technique with you young whippersnappers, working together in your day IT sales jobs, which provide lots of free time for your ambitious patriotism.

Maybe your togetherness explains the impression which struck me after our telephone conversations: how similar you two sound, an oddity in successful partnerships in my experience. For hours neither one of you came up for air, as you relentlessly made your cases, never once hesitating over a fact at the tip of your tongue even. You were adamant when we disagreed over some detail, a debate approach I normally approve of, except I've begun to recognize a pattern with you two, which explains such stubborn insistency.

Good luck promoting the "big deal" you "pulled off" "proving 9-11 was an inside job." I'll stick with my slower policy of attraction, not promotion, even if today your leery of my "off-base junk."

But lay off on the insults, would you? They make you look childish, like when you go really far afield, calling me an "old queen" who's both an "emotional dwarf" and a "cesspool of evil self-importance." You mark yourselves as habitué's of one of the mean-spirited boards I play on, like crewcial, critical thrash, or vlv.

By the way, it's no longer 12 regulars who visit, it's more like several hundred a day, though they're almost all still coming from the covert boards--your peers, I assume? All I can do is put in the effort, and turn over the results, but I do catch glimmers of progress sometimes, and wonder what this portends for you.

Good luck,

SW

Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:59:00 AM

'

Aldo, Rouge

May 27, 2007

Steven,

You are way off base. I will respond to your assessment in detail.

I found the film to be extremely problematic, on a very deep level, and calling into question every component of your honesty and integrity as you expressed yourself to me in our long telephone conversation. I’ve come to no conclusions as to who or “where” you are; just had the number of questions I’d like to ask you doubled, which, frankly, makes you more fascinating. I intend this as constructive, and I’ll try my damnedest—so take a deep breathe and let’s meet there.

Who or where I am? Steven, this is pure paranoia on your part. I am a 31 yr old single father.I am a hip hop mc. I live in Southern California-LA. I have a day job. Do you understand how demeaning it is to have to try and prove my identity to you? I contacted you regarding your claims about Riskus and to inform you of the very important work we have done.

First off, this work must be intended as subversive because it is so poorly arrived at, so riddled with obvious counter-indications, and so bombastically oversold that you indict your arguments on the overt level as well as hold yourselves open to question and ridicule. Maybe I’m lacking some perspective, as I was startled to find my mound theory as THE weird integral facet, for reasons I can’t begin to fathom, but I don’t think you want to go there.

Wow. Yes, you are lacking some perspective. More than "some".

Your "mound theory" has nothing to do with why I contacted you. It has nothing to do with real evidence. It has nothing to do with what Edward Paik, Sgt Brooks, or Sgt Lagasse saw. This is NOT about YOU.

And it may be you who lack perspective, as you must be unaware of how singularly privileged this all looks, with a level of access simply unheard of in any real gumshoe world. Needing verification, you, “Moved up the street to the Citgo gas station,” and got some. What is it about you that would generate the trust and openness to get so many highly credible but as yet unknown eyewitnesses to be forthcoming? It isn’t your interview technique. My criticisms will be all internal within the arguments you present as revealed in your film’s performances.

1.If you were paying attention to what I actually said on the phone you would know I wasn't the one doing the interviews in the film you watched. As I had told you, we went on our first trip in August '06 with the Loose Change guys, we determined people did see a large twin engine passenger airliner sized jet flying low over Arlington and in talking to people, Robert Turcios' mgr told us he saw the plane on the North side, which supported Sgt. Lagasse's "starboard side" comment he made in 2003. http://www.911-strike.com/lagasse.htm That's when we knew we had something. Robert was on vacation at the time, so all we had was the mgr's word. So I made an effort to get a hold of him on the phone after we got back from the trip. I called him after Labor Day when he got back. I spoke with him a total of 5 times over the following weeks and months, leading up to our second trip in November. Trying to determine exactly where he saw the plane and what exactly he saw-I tried to reaffirm all the details he gave me.

It appears "singularly privileged" because we worked our tails off trying get permission to film on the Citgo property, which is Pentagon property, which is why we got detained on the first trip for filming/photographing there, as I had told you. Did you know that even folks like NBC and the BBC get kicked off the property if they do not get permission, it's a fact and has happened. They told us if we wanted to film there, we needed to get permission from the Pentagon, specifically the Navy, which is exactly what we did. We took a shot in the dark and it worked. We flew right under their radar. Getting the officers to go on camera was no easy task either. Both kept making excuses and said their schedules would make it difficult for them to do it, but after much persistence and convincing they met with Craig and did the interviews.

Lets get to it. I’ll begin with transcript of what I am assuming is you, “Merc,” or Aldo, based only on your very distinctive way of saying “Rightttttttttt,” and I noticed you didn’t reveal much beyond a quarter profile of your face, and we spoke of just such a detail in our telephone call as suspicious behavior.) This is your voice over, as the transition from the Edward interview to the segment on Robert.

2. As I told you, I am not the one conducting the interviews. My partner Craig Ranke is. I am the one narrating. He shows his face on camera many times, my face has been seen many times, it's right on my myspace profile-as is his. What are you accusing us of exactly?

Merc: in a voice over: While we fully understood the importance of Edward’s testimony when we first heard it we knew it was important to see if his claim could be corroborated or refuted, so we moved up the street to the Citgo gas station, where we spoke with the manger, who told us about Robert Tercios, an employee who saw the plane. Please note, the fact that Robert Turcios was at work on 9-11 and was an eyewitness to the plane has been confirmed by his own manger, and is officially on record with the station’s payroll. Because of this there is confirmed documented proof that he was at the station and saw the plane on that day. Here is how Robert describes what he experienced.

The entire interview sounds to the ear and reads like an out-of-control young prosecutor questioning a defendant on the stand, but with absolutely no concern over grounds for objections. You take pains to note a manager’s hearsay report that Robert “saw a plane,” adding an official payroll report that “he was paid for the day,” to become “confirmed documented proof.” How does a payroll confirm he saw a plane? This is utterly laughable as your jumping-off place. Then you fail by not allowing, “how Robert describes what he experienced,” rather, here is how you cast his experience through leading and cajoling—skills found in traditions of elite secrecy, I must assume, because they are not the rule of law.

Steven, a phone call goes a long way. The reason that we make a big point to say that he is confirmed to have been working that day is because about 2 weeks after we came back from the first trip and announced Robert telling me on the phone that the plane was on the North side and that it pulled up and after I plastered it all over the forums...THEY RELEASED THE CITGO VIDEO! And guess what? Robert is not seen at the pump he told us he was at. This was before we had Lagasse and Brooks. So the perps thought they could ruin Robert's credibility by removing him from the Citgo footage. They just didn't count on us getting Lagasse, who DOES appear in the Citgo footage, and Sgt Brooks. He wasn't lead or cajoled. He told Craig the exact same thing he told me on the phone. In fact, Craig obtained a first interview with him, using his little digital camera. Robert had originally told me on his last phone call with me, that he wouldn't be able to talk to the "media" anymore, due to his comment in this article that conveniently happened after our first trip.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901469_pf.html

So we had to surprise him when Craig went back in November. Craig found him at the Citgo, told him he was my partner and that he was there for the documentary. He told him he would be there filming officers and convinced him to come outside and give his account for him. Craig, knowing how important it was, attempted to film Robert with his little digital camera without Robert knowing. Again, Robert is shy and did not want to go on camera. It took a lot to convince him to come back and give us an interview. That is why you see a photo of him in his red uniform, and in our interview he came on his day off in his own clothes.

Cut to Robert standing on the south side of the Citgo.

Robert: OK. So, I’m saying, I had just come out to do the pump maintenance that morning, you know, taking out the old water, replacing the paper towels, and I had my cart over here and when I…I hard a loud engine sound—we normally get fly-bys, from the airplanes—but it was louder than that. So you know, I started looking at where it was coming from. So I was looking around, and I saw the airplane come down here, over the tree.

Merc: OK. Lets see where you saying it was coming down. We’re on the south side of the Citgo station, Robert says he saw it came down come down over here…the camera pans to the north…on the north side. Is that right, Robert?

From the git-go, Robert is admitting to the use of an established script in his syntax, not, “so, as I was saying…” or, “as we previously discussed.” This likely stems from something you mention towards the end of the interview, when you say, “OK. I gave you this drawing yesterday” wherein he drew a flight path for the plane, because he apparently wouldn’t draw it on camera like the two cops do. These sorts of meetings are called “advanced briefings,” Aldo, not investigative journalism.

By the way, the way you use his name, “ROBERT,” makes it sound like your trying to hypnotize him, or intimidate him, which is poor interview etiquette at minimum. He should have answered you back with a tug on his forelock, as he scrunched his cap between his hands, shouting out, “Yes Govnur!”

Steven, that is the way Craig speaks to people. Craig is not a cameraman or an on-air personality. That is the way he thought he should address people when he is conducting a recorded interview. I can't help the way Craig speaks, Steven. You, once again, are incredibly off base.

The reason why Robert says "as I was saying" is because we edited it. Do you know why we edited it? Because there was a man in a car behind them honking his horn, being difficult, claiming they were in his way. So they had to stop the interview and Robert had to place a safety cone in front of the space they were filming at, near pumps 10 & 11. The raw footage is available, just make an appointment with us, and we'll show you.

Robert drew the flight path for him in the store when Craig caught him at work on the first encounter, as Craig tried to film him drawing the flight path the store mgr told him he couldn't film in the store. Robert said on camera it was his photo, so we felt it wasn't necessary to include the incomplete footage from inside the store.

Robert: Yes that’s correct, it was, to my, I saw it come right over that, the top of the tree there, next to the corner of the canopy

Merc: repeating: Next to the corner of the canopy…which carries no meaning because the camera is not catching sight of any corner, which lead to an obvious non sequitur … So it came between those two trees?

Robert: Yes, that’s what I recollect

Merc: OK.

Here, already, is an example of your intent, because you are not present, you are not listening, and you are not responding appropriately, which I must assume is because you haven’t gotten to the more important part yet. So here you’re blinded dissociated.

3. Again, that is Craig. Robert was his first interview regarding the North side, as he didn't get to Lagasse and Brooks yet. So he was trying to film by himself, ask questions, be sure to not forget any questions, carry a folder with pictures of planes and the photos Robert so graciously gave him of the mound from the day of 9/11. I think Craig did a fine job and I don't fault him if he seemed a bit scattered in his approach--being that he has NEVER used a camera or filmed anything or anyone. I don't think initially understood how detailed we wanted him to be in his recollection of where he saw the jet. When they filmed on the North side, Robert later specified how far North the plane was and Sgt Lagasse confirmed it.

Robert: still on message, Um…It seemed to be very, very low to the ground, I thought it was going to let, hit, the floor…the street…here…the ramp….but, I…

Merc: too brightly: So, let’s go over there!

Aldo, in our call, we both spoke of our experiences contemplating the devil in this work. I’ve become experienced enough even to codify several attributes I find in his messages: a recognizable signal by grammar or syntax, a repeated or omitted word, for instance; a dislocated voice—like a stage whisper, or ventriloquism; a message in form of the exact opposite of what is really the truth; but with Robert, who truly is transparent and guileless, as he gets upset in direct proportion to the pressure placed on him to say a certain thing in a certain way, I saw a common attribute hidden by its obviousness: the quick ins and outs, sometimes only a few words long, without any continuity, like computer viruses battling. As in here, where Robert loses his second-language skills, in both the subject and the verb simultaneously: Let! Hit! Floor! Street! Ramp! I tried to be faithful to meaning in my use of punctuation, and it reads like he’s losing his grip, and surprise, the topic is the mounds! Why?

Steven, you are creating a reality for yourself. You are letting your imagination run away with these wild theories. You have to ground yourself. Please, for the love of sanity and the truth. The topic was not mounds. If you followed our interactions with Pickering, you would see that he tried to use the mound as a tool to try and discredit Robert. The mound was integral part of his account, but not Edwards, Brooks' or Lagasse's. Robert had logically (thankfully) thought to bring the photos of the mound to show what his view was actually like that day and he gave them to Craig. End of story.

Robert leads the way towards the mound, with the camera following. After only a few steps, and mid-stride, Robert is heard to say in a slightly surreal voice

Robert: Stop here…

but he doesn’t, continuing on, advancing to the curb, when Merc asks:

Merc: Where were you exactly?

Which stops him cold, he turns back towards Merc in a misunderstanding of his meaning, shaking his head exasperatedly, laughing…

Which Merc also misinterprets what this signifies, so he responds aggressively, saying…

Merc: You were right there! But the mound was a lot smaller huh?

Robert: Yes it was a lot smaller.

There is an awful lot of energetics going on in this scene. It’s riff with assumptions that come from a back-story. I see the motherload.

Anybody will have a hard time establishing why those mounds were built in the first place, let alone why they were “grown.” On September 11 they were beautifully formed and solid, racked with groves in anticipation of seeding (an absolutely brilliant detail by the way, to leave them in an unseeded state for 9-11! Choice!)

The audio you hear is from the little hand held recorder Robert is holding. We knew his account was important and we wanted to make sure people heard this very soft spoken man, so we synced up the camera audio with the audio from the recorder he was holding. That's the reason for his "surreal" voice.

Again, I am not sure why you are hung up on the mound Steven. It was in place on 9/11, it may have been placed there to obscure the view (then or later). Or it may just be a coincidence. We will never know. Take a minute and think if the mound is crucial to figuring out what happened. Of course it isn't. Maybe in your mind. But it isn't important. Then think about the fact that you will NEVER be able to prove why the mounds were really there. Do you really believe that I contacted you about seeing our evidence so we could dissuade you of this bird -brained theory about the mound or affect your "theory"? Are you this mentally unstable?

Merc: still leading, a la Pearl Mesta: You have some pictures of that, why don’t we get Fred some pictures. Can you show us those pictures Robert, how high was the mound, Robert?

Merc hands off a portfolio, which Robert takes, opens desultorily, vaguely proffering the top image…

Robert: This is what it looked like then, like, back then,

Merc: O.K. let me zoom in on that.

Robert: It was not completed then as you see it now.

Merc: Rightttttttttt.

It was a little bit shorter

Merc: with only slightly less T rollage: Righttt.

Robert: So I could see a little bit, more then now….ah, but..

Merc: interrupts in his too-positive persona, offering absurdly: In fact, let’s go up on the mound and see if we can get a better view of what you actually saw.

Robert leads the way, but stops halfway up the mound. The camera ascends to that point, but just keeps on going, an additional five or so steps, to the crest. As the camera stabilizes, leveling its view of the Pentagon, we can then see Robert’s shadow sheepishly taking the extra necessary steps to meet up with him. Leading the witness?

Wow. This is intense. Did I start this mess? Shit. Don’t try this on Court TV.

And I still can’t tell, after repeated viewings: does Merc mistakenly call Robert Fred once?

4. No "Merc" doesn't. Because "Merc" wasn't there. Craig Ranke was there and Craig does not call him 'Fred'.

You didn't start anything except your overactive imagination and your tendency to make this about you. Do you really think I contacted you because of the mound? Are you really that crazy?

Merc: OK! So there we go. That’s the Pentagon! Pretty close view of where the impact point was. Turning the camera to face Robert, who visibly recoils in involuntary defensiveness at the combination of this gesture and his vocal tone…Now Robert, when you ran up to the mound, you saw the plane fly through…um…between these two trees, What happened after that.

Robert: Well, as I say, um, what I saw was a gray plane ah …shrugs…I couldn’t really tell exactly what it was…quickly correcting himself…I mean, I couldn’t tell the markings on the side of it, just...

Merc: Interrupting: Did you see any markings at all?

Robert: No, I don’t remember seeing any markings.

Merc: OK. It was gray. Was it a bright gray or a dull gray. Oy vay!

Robert: Kind of bright.

Merc: Kind of bright.

Robert: shrugs: It was more a silver gray than….

Merc: OK.

Robert: But it was so, kind of quick, maybe two seconds when I saw, laughs, gesturing back to where he had been standing, when I saw…swoop down here…then I tried to follow it…I…saw it lift up a little bit to get over to the side of the bridge…here.

Merc: To the side of the bridge?

Robert: Yes, where you see the Do-Not-Enter sign

Merc: attempting to focus the camera: The Do-Not-Enter sign…

Robert: it seemed to be that way…pause… the Do-Not-Enter sign…oh I see… OK, he’s talking about the Do-Not-Enter sign…pans…right there…

Robert: It’s on the billboard…

Merc: Right there…Leading the witness: So it flew up to go over that.

Robert: Yes, it…ah…

Merc: OK. And?

Robert: And, then, my view was not…I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon, all I see is, all I saw was, it headed straight to it, and a, shrugs, then the big explosion, just the fireball, and lots of smoke.

Merc: OK. So you see….so you didn’t actually see it hit the Pentagon? Duh.

Notice that the repeating of “run up the hill” by Merc should have read, “So, I ran out here...to this mound…to see if I could see what was going to happen…ah...but.”

Quite clearly, you have a vested interested in getting Robert to admit to seeing something attempt a “pull-up” maneuver, which might then be broadened into your flyover theory.

Robert’s honest testimony is, “I tried to follow it.”

I think the only thing that would hug the ground over hill and dale like that would be a cruise missile, but than again, I KNOW you have a vested interest in NOT saying that.

Steven, what is wrong with you? Are you ok? Did you hit your head in between the time I spoke with you and the time you watched the movie? Take a step back from the painting and take another look.

Let me explain something to you so you understand. You are what people call a "Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist"( or you are an operative yourself-I will wait for your next move before I make that assessment)-you may even have some mental issues due to all the acid you took at age 13. You being a PCT are a detriment to the truth. You have done no genuine research, which results in finding out what actually happened. You stare at photos and use your broken "sixth sense" (You may want to get that fixed by the way) to formulate a case. Your delusional gut feelings do not qualify as research or investigating.

I have a vested interest in getting to the truth. There was no goddamn missile Steven. There is no evidence for it, if we need to we can go over it again-no one with a name and a face saw a missile. The damage does not indicate a missile. It indicates a poorly simulated plane shape in the building, with columns blown up and out, accomplished through explosives. Explosives which are corroborated by victims .

We had a vested interest in Robert telling Craig on camera what he told me on the phone. And he did, Steven.

Robert: No, the views was…it was obstructed still…I could only see the… he gestures…the fireball.

Merc: Did you see it hitting any of the light poles?

Robert: No, I…laughing satirically—I must have missed that. I just saw it pick up, just to make the…

Merc: You saw it pick up to miss that? Rather than hitting the lamp poles? Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?

Robert: Disingenuously: Fly over? The Pentagon? No, only thing I saw was when it was a direct, a direct line to go into the Pentagon….

Merc: interrupting…OK. So you didn’t see it hit?

Robert: finishing…. collided…. No I did not.

Merc: Because there were other plans as well, some people say a gray plane flew over the Pentagon that was following it. But you did not see that?

Robert: No, I did not see any other planes…no.

Merc: OK. Did you see any windows on the plane?

Robert: No, I don’t.

Merc: Did you notice how many engines it had?

Robert: I could see the one from my side, the big turbine engine, you know, on the wing. Laugh

Merc: OK. Just one.

Merc is clearly not paying attention to Robert at this point. Yes Merc, Robert technically said “one” big turbine engine, but he also said, “you know, on the wing.” He is meaning for you to extrapolate the result, not mindlessly parrot, “OK. Just one,” as if the plane’s name were Eileen.

5. Steven, that is Craig. Clearly Craig does not meet your standards for a interviewer. Sure there are things I wish he said or asked differently, but he interview is what it is. It is about the North side and Robert seeing the plane pull up.

Let go of your beliefs. There was a plane. Why don't you get off your delusional ass and go out there and tell the people of Arlington it was a missile or sorry, "missileS". There was no missile-not one that can be confirmed anyway, maybe one DID shoot from the plane before it flew over, or maybe one did come from the gnerator trailer-but we CAN'T prove it. I know, it's like someone telling you there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny.I know it's not as exciting or fascinating as a missile attack, but it's the truth Steven. They kept us confused and in the dark, they kept the people of Arlington thinking we were all nuts because the perps promoted missile and global hawk/A3 theories, while the people of Arlington all saw a large plane on it's way to the Pentagon.

The real evidence was in the flight path and dubious accounts about a "second" plane/jet chasing/shadowing along the flight path and veering away as soon as the fireball explosion happened. And we proved it.

Get on a plane, go to the gas station and ask Robert what he saw. Ask him if Craig led him. Ask him if we misrepresented his testimony in any way, shape or form.

Cut. Robert is shown standing on the north side of the Citgo station, where the mound has conspicuously petered out, revealing the full splendid view of the Pentagon.

Merc: OK. Here we are on the north side of the Citgo station, the Navy Annex station…laughs... whatever it’s called. What’s it called?

Robert: Navy Exchange.

Merc: Navy Exchange:

Merc is simply being rude here, which further establishes his priorities.

Not continuing on with the full transcript, the interview concludes with a sequence:

6. Once again, it is Craig. Not me. And Craig was not rude, he just laughed because he didn't know the new name of the station off the top of his head. Get a grip.

Robert: I lost sight of it behind the mound…getting back on message… that’s when I ran out…

Merc: Pauses to collect himself, then in a summary tone: When you ran out to the mound, that’s when you saw it pick up a bit?

Robert: Utterly surrendered: Yes.

Merc: OK. But without a doubt it was on this side of the station the north side

This blows the whole game! You are saying yourself that your two major points carry different levels of doubt and verification! Are we meant to find out the truth by virtue of such slipshod work and does this explain your ennui over the agenda of the Illuminati? Are we meant to destroy ourselves in factional fighting?

I don't know Mr. Conspiracy Theorist, or is it Mr. Operative? You are the one causing the fight. Causing mistrust. You are working very much like a subversive operative casting doubt while simultaneously making yourself look nuts-which in turn makes truth seekers look nuts. Clearly it was a mistake even contacting you, but I guess once you saw the movie (or they gave you the order) you would blog out these delusions (or calculated disinformation) for all to see anyway.

The following conclusion is cheap bullshit and you know it.

Robert’s account is earth shattering. He collaborates Edward’s account and definitively places the plane on the north side of the gas station, proving the official story a fabrication. What’s also quite notable about Robert’s account is he actually saw the plane pull up to miss the street sign and light poles

So, where does that leave us? When they say “it was an inside job,” what does that mean?

I sense several factions dancing in a balance of corruption, as well as even more covert—if there can be such a thing—organized pockets of good will, working to subvert the subversion. Where do you fit in Aldo? Because your bullshit about taking the bus doesn’t fly with me anymore.

Lastly, my responding to you privately in this fashion is completely uncharacteristic of me and my tactics. I know this stuff in my gut and I should be altering the tenses here and there and publicly posting straightaway on my blog and your forums, which is likely to happen anyway, but giving you a chance to come clean first, leaves me reeling. Please don’t lie again.

Most of the cheap bullshit can be found on your blog, next to the 99 cent research and second hand, discounted theories.

Don't lie again? Motherfucker, you got some nerve. So now I have to regret telling you personal things about my life? I have to convince you that I rode a bus for a period of time in my life like it's even relevant? How dare you threaten to drag our good names through the mud because you are an unstable paranoid conspiracy theorist? I am responding now out of duress for fear that you WOULD blog this nonsense if I didn't respond to your delusions (or calculated disinformation). I guess if it is calculated disinformation you will publish it anyways.

So tell me, who is telling the truth? Who in Steven Welch's warped mind is actually telling the truth? Is everybody in on it? So everybody in Arlington is lying or was led because Steven M. Welch "KNOWS" it was "missiles" because he stared at pictures harder and longer than everybody else?

Should we have just sat behind our computer and stared at photos too? Argued with people online about witness lists ? No wait, we wouldn't be doing that, because according to you, we are accomplices to this crime. That infuriates me.

I am forwarding this e-mail to Craig so he can respond. I hope you think twice about your conclusions. If you want to post about missiles, do it until your heart's content at the expense of the truth and our work. But leave our names out of your "theories"/accusations.

Craig......Noir

Craig Ranke CIT said...

Covert boards eh? Uh-huh. Well I'm quite sure they are absolutely enthralled and completely thrilled with the free work you are doing for them. Especially now that we are your target.

Lay off the insults??? You are publicly accusing us as being complicit in mass murder! Subversives that work so close with the perpetrators of this crime that they helped us stage a fake "investigation" and produce an amateurish documentary (for realism no doubt)primarily for the purpose of addressing you and your idiotic mound theory or feeding your insatiable ego.

No, the impression we are creating for the critical thrash crew and the handful of so called "covert board" members does not concern me so as long as we are your target you will continue to receive the insults you deserve. You must at least admit that I am infinitely more creative in my delivery than most right?

Aldo and I talk similarly because we are close friends and we work together on this information, and for a living as inside phone salesmen of software (not IT), every day. Or is it because we were trained side by side during cointelpro boot camp? We are constantly researching and investigating this information so we know all details of the Pentagon attack like the back of our hands and if you randomly call out virtually any witness we can pretty much cite all the details about their account by memory. You were one of the few people that we have talked to that also seemed to be able to do this. It would have been cool to continue discussions with you if you weren't such a paranoid delusional egomaniac.

Frankly we don't have anything personally against lazy self absorbed bloggers that prefer to push fantasy and conjecture while safely attacking people from behind their computer. But now you have chosen to make us your target. And don't blame us for contacting you because I'm sure you would have eventually found your way to our site despite the fact that you have proven yourself an internet retard who gets frustrated from posting URL's into search engines instead of his browser. The fact that you have convinced yourself you have figured out how to "decode images" doesn't convince me that you have the foggiest notion of what you have done or that it is anything relevant in any way whatsoever.

Yeah sorry but if the insults fit, wear them.

Sunday, June 24, 2007 1:13:00 PM

stevenwarran said...

Craig, I really shouldn't have even glanced at this machine. I need to be outside and I'll answer you fully later on, but I needed to make one point now:

I'm glad for our display of public dialog, but I'm not going to give you an inch. You younger people might have the edge, being fully acclimated to the technology, but you're also missing something in consequence along the way, something that informs my perception. Like being able to read the moue on someone's half-hidden face, or expertly gauging vocal tone, picking up on subtly signals--"extra-sensory nuance." It's not clairvoyance, it's sensitivity. And God, not ego, that empowers.

Might it be a gay thing? I don't think so. The young circuit gays in the city are more like you than me, as they moved past trance into meth and the diabolical sound styled as "pots and pans." Yes! That's literally what they listen to as a communal experience! The digitalized morphing of the rankling of POTS AND PANS, as they hiss at one another in passing, the arrogant dead twisted negative vibe replacing the great tribal drum love fests I remember--it was called disco dancing!

I never equated you with the mass murderers! You are simply components of some government faction attempting to steer the unfolding of reality, maybe just to minimize damage to the persons-of-power that rule you. I worry about you. I know how sever failure is punished in hierarchies. But I can't sugar coat it: you're one of them, not one of us, and it just won't work. Violence and deceit are finished. You more and more remind me of Riskus, even in your off-topic and bitter insults (not your best efforts.) You even praise my Father Stephen McGraw and Loyde England work, which is only what everyone else got, ignoring my constant Riskus exposures, and my transcendent work on the newspaper photographers, the pyromancy, and yes, the mounds. I don't have to "prove" any meaning. They are there. Individuals will "get" it. All at once, I might imagine.

May I give one sterling example of your failing to understand what it's like out here, and not in there?

I went over to your PentaCon site only to be struck by your embedding a Penn & Teller video, meant to make a legitimate point, about the potential misleading of witness. But if you were one of us, you would be revolted by the pair, who viciously were called into service in the early days of ridiculing 9-11 skepticism. I can still recall the sheer evil force behind their mocking acquitting of themselves in a video debunking truthers. They enjoyed the task, in the days when Guantanamo was still working its intended magic, and they were relishing the full scope of the horror.

You could use this instead to make your same point?:

"Thus (through perspective) every sort of confusion is revealed within us; and this is that weakness of the human mind on which the art of conjuring and of deceiving by light and shadow and other ingenious devices imposes, having an effect upon us like magic... And the arts of measuring and numbering and weighing come to the rescue of the human understanding-there is the beauty of them --and the apparent greater or less, or more or heavier, no longer have the mastery over us, but give way before calculation and measure and weight?"[7]
Plato's Republic, Book X, 602d."

It's funny what you can pick up on the avenue when you're outside of group think-you people REALLY NEED gays in the military.

I will, over and over, present examples to you, which slowly, will wear down your energy, to make these poses.

I'll trump your working-class bona fides in a heartbeat! I made my mom's mother a granny when she was 33 and keeping a tavern--two of the distinguishing characteristics of white trash!

Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:50:00 PM

Craig Ranke CIT said...

How could you forget (or deceptively leave out) the fact that Aldo first contacted you BECAUSE of your info on Riskus? I have personally interviewed McGraw and England which is why I mentioned them. I have not interviewed Riskus and for all I know he was honestly duped by the sleight of hand illusion just like the citgo witnesses were.

I used Penn & Teller PURPOSEFULLY because 1. they explain the 7 basic principles of sleight of hand perfectly, and 2. BECAUSE of the irony that I am using information provided by these scumbag pseudo-skeptics to PROVE the plane didn't hit the building.

You mean to tell me with all your "sensitivity" you couldn't even pick up on that?

I thought the irony would be obvious and even help make the point.

Great quote though. Perhaps I'll use that too.

There is no way around the fact that you are accusing us of mass murder. You are suggesting the perps helped us completely stage and fabricate our entire investigation. What else could that imply?

You are not any more "sensitive" or working class than Aldo and myself and to be honest with you neither of us are particularly technologically savvy either. We are phone salesguys, not techs. I am a drummer in a Reggae band and am a "hippy" at heart and have participated in many drum circles and have even studied traditional west African rhythms. I was born in Detroit and went to high school at Lake Fenton High in Michigan just outside of Flint. My parents divorced when I was in 6th grade and I lived with my mom and younger sister, my only sibling. My Mom was a secretary who worked for Gennessee county and has since retired and moved to New Mexico. She is a very spiritual progressive catholic who is an activist for social justice, and greater tolerance in the Catholic church. She worked as an intern for a year with Sojourner's magazine under founder and well known author/activist Jim Wallace and also works with the Center for Action and Contemplation under Father Richard Rohr who is another very well known author and strong advocate for social justice and fighter against poverty.

The biggest lessons I learned from my Mother are feminism, non-violence, and the importance of self sacrifice to help those in need..

These are the principles that I grew up with and THIS is part of why I am so driven to expose the heinous truth behind the crimes of 9/11.

It pains me to be attacked by anyone for my motives but I'll have to admit that your attacks are worse than others because they are so blatantly and ridiculously off base and the fact that they are clearly ego driven is what makes it particularly annoying.

Plus I like you. I do believe that you are "sensitive" and I appreciate your fearless attitude in blogging so relentlessly about your thoughts & beliefs even if many of them are off base.

So yeah it sucks that you decided to come out full flare with your ego when it comes to us and the information we have obtained.

Sunday, June 24, 2007 5:22:00 PM

stevenwarran said..

Yeah, I like you too. My mom was a Dorothy Day, Catholic Worker house type, so I bet she'd like your mom.

Getting some life facts out on you also helps, unlike Aldo's "Do you understand how demeaning it is to have to try and prove my identity to you?" What? This is the blogosphere, where a steady diet of embarrassingly personal revelation is standard! The only personal detail he shared I clearly misheard. I thought he said that he had given up his Land Rover to take the bus as an act of voluntary simplicity--not, he rode the bus when he was young. But he did say Land Rover. Remember that if we start our class wars again.

You've got the energy motivating us all wrong. I have no investment in a missile theory other than I think that's what the five frames show, and my personal smoking-gun is the blast exit damage in the A&E Drive. One hole gets three or more interpretations, two others plus all the enhanced windows concussively thrusted outwards, were completely ignored, which is sign of a coverup.

If preplanted explosives were used, why all the inconsistency? Why did you become so livid at what I saw as the significance of the deflected floor slab? Isn't that what bunker-buster munitions are supposed to do? Cut-charge through the outside wall to burrow in deep to specific targets? Did you read my Orme blog with its suppressed paragraph explaining different damage trajectories?

I know additional munitions were employed for effects. Would it be vain of me to take credit for first spotting in photographs exploded shell casings in the mud outside? For first hypothesizing interior pyrotechnic shows put on for the benefit of firefighters? For first imagining the moral horror of Christians deliberately subjecting themselves to burning as part of The Big Lie?

Your thesis is old news to me actually. One of the first photographs that I was able to get my head around was the high-resolution aerial that somebody had marked in colors as "the two plane theory," which indicated some witness saw the path you describe.

It is the credibility of your witnesses that I question, and the manner in which it all emerges.

Aldo says "Robert Turcios' mgr told us he saw the plane on the North side, which supported Sgt. Lagasse's "starboard side" comment he made in 2003," so that this would constitute his Eureka! moment, when he made the connection and you knew you were on to something.

So why then, did you make a documentary film that says your first testimony came from the mechanic, and that Roberts was sought out as corroboration?

"Merc: in a voice over: While we fully understood the importance of Edward’s testimony when we first heard it we knew it was important to see if his claim could be corroborated or refuted, so we moved up the street to the Citgo gas station, where we spoke with the manger, who told us about Robert Tercios, an employee who saw the plane."

You can't take artistic license and flip the sequence the interviews took place, as more info came to you, as knowledge develops, when you are supposedly explicating truth!

OK, so how did you first contact Lagasse? Where in God's name did you find Brooks? Where I live, policemen's contact information is not kept public, this is so criminals bent on revenge don't show up at their doors. Maybe you plan to cover all this in your researchers edition, because the interesting and relevant details, emerging as they do at such a late date, relate to your interaction together.

You want to know my Eureka! moment? It's when you panned that damn camera on the south side of the citgo to the north, and for the first time I could see that I had been right, and not even the roof line of the Pentagon was visible. So absolutely everything you attempt getting Roberts up that hill to witness is simply bogus in my book. I don't buy it. He wouldn't have had time to break at the hip before it was all over. And I judge all of the acting of everybody as absolutely horrible given the truth you intend to convey.

Likewise, your restaging of the sightline Brooks enjoyed as he sat in his car in a parking lot doing paperwork seems both gratuitous and calculated to some end relevant the mounds.

It is odd in the extreme that you don't take the slightest interest in those massive ocular impediments. I noticed freshly planted trees in some before photographs, and I first learned through you that lots of trees were taken out afterward in the VDOT area, so I know you understand the manipulation involved here vis-a-vis sightlines. But the "concerned, intuitive, fearless, intelligent, ambitious patriots turned investigative reporters" chose what shall interest them, and what shall not. You come out yourself using words like "cointelpro," which I have to look up, so I get your irony here, "discredit and disrupt," but at best, only "sarcasm" with Penn & Teller.

Nothing makes any sense with this! Even going back to look at Lagasse's testimony makes things reel!
http://www.911-strike.com/lagasse.htm
How could he see window shades down when standing under a canape?

Craig, I am sorry, I am truly sorry, but in the film you don't come across anything like a hippy. You come across looking like an operative. Aldo contacted me on a fishing expedition and I was not surprised with the question he asked. But that you could say, "I have not interviewed Riskus and for all I know he was honestly duped by the sleight of hand illusion just like the citgo witnesses were," after reading and absorbing my work on him, means that I have nothing further to offer you. Ciao.

Sunday, June 24, 2007 10:47:00 PM

Craig Ranke CIT said...

Why do you try to dehumanize Robert Turcios by calling him the incorrect surname of "Roberts"?

You are SO blatantly and disgustingly into yourself!

This is NOT about you and your stupid blog.

I haven't "absorbed" ANYTHING you've written other than our exchanges.

Just like you hadn't seen our documentary when Aldo had contacted you I had not read your entire blog. In FACT I had barely read any of it. I simply came across your stuff about McGraw and remembered it when Aldo told me he emailed you. Sorry to burst your bubble but I STILL have not read through all your stuff.


Why would I?



You're not going to like it but I'll give you the timeline.....

I knew of you because of your pieces on England and McGraw. I figured you're probably a cool dude and never really thought much about it and CERTAINLY did not follow or frequent your blog in any way.

Aldo told me he sent you an email to see what you had on Riskus and get your opinion on The PentaCon.

I had never read any of your Riskus stuff.

Then Aldo forwarded me your response to our data so I just decided to call you and you know how that turned out.

We had our brief email exchange and I sat back bracing for the worst.

Only then did I attempt to get into your Riskus drama and it was only with half interest.

Sorry dude but it's hard to trust the rantings of someone who is accusing you of mass murder.

But look at how deep and obvious your last post is simply drenched with ego!

You snort:
"Your thesis is old news to me actually."

Haha!

And then you go into a strange sarcastic semi description of an image on Dick Eastman's blog and the two plane theory. (which we do not believe because we found no evidence for it)

Guess what Steven? This is not about our "thesis". This is about the evidence. We set out to find it and we brought it back and you are greeting it with sheer lunacy and wild knee-jerk reactions.

Now....to address an important and strange point that you insist on making.....

WE DID HAVE EDWARD'S ACCOUNT BEFORE WE TALKED WITH THE CITGO MANAGER OR ROBERT TURCIOS OR ANY OF THE CITGO WITNESSES.

So the movie was presented in perfect order with which we obtained the information.

Why are you nitpicking about the simplistic script we wrote to present the information? For the love of God man! There is NOTHING deceptive or incorrect about us presenting it like that and it does not change the north side claim one bit.

This boils down to ONE question in your tweaked out mind and that is whether or not it was an honest effort on our part or we are complicit operatives.

As far has how I got a hold of Brooks and Lagasse it was simple. I called the Pentagon police and asked for them.


We've talked with other first responders and witnesses the same way and have even recorded the calls.


The reason you think it's so impossible is because you HAVE NOT TRIED.

Why don't you at least TRY calling a first responder or witness before you go around claiming it's so damn impossible?

This is getting tiresome.

It's hilarious how my entire life I've been a long haired freak (I had hair past my ass for about a decade and everyone thought I looked like the lead singer for the chili peppers) but to this guy I look like an operative because my hair is only kind of moppy now.

Whatever man.

I've given you more attention then you deserve.

Blog until your heart's content.

If you have any honest questions about me give me a call and I'll be happy to answer.

I'll never avoid the truth but I am tired of feeding your ego, I mean blog, I mean ego. Well you get the point.

Monday, June 25, 2007 2:00:00 AM


stevenwarran said...

I’d pit my tweak powers against your sooper secret elite lizard people powers any day of the week.

So this is how it goes, is it? Where the rubber of the synthetic meets the road to reality?

Was it Bernard Shaw who said the problem was conservatives are always so sure of themselves, while liberals are constantly doubting and second-guess things? Or did he say the distinction applied to the intelligent and the dumb? Did Nietzsche or Kant speak of synthetic reality? Is it better not to know how the law of unintended consequences applies to the process of devising, arraigning and fabricating imitations to replace usual reality?

But, I have to say, it really works—or I mean, it did. It was extremely deft of you to come back with, an obvious use of irony, in your choice of a Penn & Teller video to layer your intended point. I mean, really, what’s wrong with someone who doesn’t get that.

It was rather stunning to feel I had to play catch up. But we’ve just about reached the end of the line, I think.

Now you can’t even choose a fucking font right.

You people do see it don’t you? That nothing you do will turn out, everything you do will turn to shit? We’ve pulled the curtain back to see the wizard only to find you’re not even a character actor!

I can stare at stenographic code and charge it like a stigil.

I need to go have some fun.

Monday, June 25, 2007 4:26:00 PM

Craig Ranke CIT said...

Obviously Penn & Teller are much more famous than Citizen Investigation Team so it's not like us linking their "sleight of hand" piece is going to raise their profile. The people who were supposed to get the irony of me using Penn & Teller to prove the 9/11 official story false are the ones who already understood they are truth movement skeptics. If they didn't get it the perfectly relevant sleight of hand point was still made.

Since you were clearly already aware of Penn & Teller's "skepticism" you would therefore be in the perfect position to get the irony. But alas....it flew right over your bloated out head as you predictably used it as concrete evidence that we are "one of them". (insert eye roll smiley here)

No matter how many times you refer to us as "you people" and desperately try to make us out to be 33rd degree masonic heirs to the NWO throne your words will come off as beyond fantasy to anyone who is remotely familiar with us or our work and our history.

Aldo and I have been EXTREMELY active truth warriors for well before we met Dylan and the Loose Change crew on our first field research trip to DC. We have long time reputations for being ruthless crusaders against the official fraud and our posting history is known by many.

Dylan Avery himself is privy to the research we have done and was present when we interviewed McGraw, England, and during our first interview with Edward as well as when we found out about Robert Turcios from the manager of the citgo.

So you are basically accusing him as being in on the plot as well. So why don't you make that statement for the record? Who ISN'T in on the plot besides you?

We relentlessly posted about our progress on a virtual daily basis as we moved forward with our investigation.

It's funny the way you question how we could even know about Brooks as if we had the Pentagon cast him in the roll of "the black cop" for us.

Most people are quite aware of the earlier library of congress interviews from both Lagasse and Brooks where Brooks claims he "saw" the light poles get clipped.

We knew from Eastman's email that Lagasse would probably make the north side claim but we had no idea where Brooks would place the plane and we were skeptical of him because of his previous light pole clipping comment.

In person on camera he cleared up for the world that he did NOT see the poles get clipped after all and merely deduced this fact from seeing them on the ground after the fact just like Lagasse. And low and behold just like Lagasse, Paik, and Turcios he saw the plane on the north side of the gas station/Columbia Pike.


We were skeptical in the past about Lagasse too because of his "wing vortices" claim but he was man enough to admit to us that he actually flinched and jumped in his car out of "fear". It makes sense that he would have embellished something more manly in the past to save face.

Bottom line, genuine honest witnesses can be incorrect, deduce information that isn't true, or even embellish stuff that they may believe is harmless so it's up to us to determine when testimony is accurate and usually this is done by the level of corroboration of the particular detail in question.

The fact that they all saw the plane on the north side is what makes this particular detail proven beyond a reasonable doubt in turning proving 9/11 was an inside job.

Simple isn't it?


It's pointless trying to convince you of everything because you simply spin every word I type to be another reason to consider me a spook.

But we'll continue to get attacks from fanatical official story robots, remote guided 757 impact conspiracy theorists, as well as the missile/global hawk huggers such as yourself.

But the research, evidence, logic, and truth are behind us and this data and Citizen Investigation Team are not going anywhere.

I know I need to stay off your blog. As much as I know that every post I make gets your ego giddy with anticipation and satisfaction. Unfortunately I can't seem to help myself from giving you your fix.

You won't "go have some fun" because, pathetically, nothing in life is more enjoyable to you than this. Monday, June 25, 2007 6:49:00 PM